Among these are a laundry at Fort Lewis, Washington; a dependent school addition in Germany; two commissaries, one at Fort Bragg, N.C., and another at Fort Carson, Colorado; a service club at Fort Sill, Oklahoma; post offices at Fort Lee, Virginia, and Fort Bliss, Texas; and confinement facility additions at Fort Meade, Maryland, and Fort Lewis, Washington.

The Navy's programming for bachelor housing totals $108.7 million, and will provide new and modernized quarters for 26,307 bachelor enlisted men and 1,288 bachelor officers. Mess facilities total $6.6 million. Community support items total $9.0 million and include a $1.7 million enlisted men's service club in Newport, Rhode Island; a $3.5 million personnel support facility in Adak, Alaska; and nine other miscellaneous facilities. Included in this general category is $1.0 million for modernization at the Naval Home in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Air Force program for this category provides $40.4 million for troop housing facilities and $15.8 million for community facilities. The $40.4 million will provide 4,980 airmen dormitory spaces at a cost of $21.0 million; alterations and improvements to existing dormitories, $11.6 million; 504 bachelor officer quarters, $6.9 million; and alterations to existing officer quarters, $0.9 million. The $15.8 million for community facilities will provide for five Chapel Centers and one Religious Education Facility, $4.0 million; five commissaries, including two projects for additions and alterations, $6.0 million; three gymnasiums, including one project for an addition to an existing gymnasium, $1.4 million; two recreation libraries and one Library Service Center, $1.0 million; and four miscelleaneous community facilities, $3.4 million.

Utilities and Ground Improvements, $172.0 million

This portion of the program provides for expansions and additions to utility systems and road nets at various U.S. and Overseas locations. A significant element of this year's, as in last year's program, is directed toward further implementing the national policies for controlling water and air pollution. The military department totals in the category of utilities and ground improvements are as follows:

For pollution abatement at 170 installations, exclusive of $1.3 million for Defense Agencies, there is included a total of $128.6 million for 201 projects as a continuation of the program begun three years ago to eliminate pollution at our military installations.

Of this amount, $66.7 million is for the control of air pollution, and $61.9 million for the control of water pollution. All of these projects have been coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The pollution abatement projects in each of the service programs are reflected in the following discussions:

In compliance with federal, state and local air and water pollution control regulations and Executive Order 11507 (4 Feb. 1970), the Army's request includes $35.5 million for 47 air pollution abatement projects at 32 CONUS installations and $32.8 million for 36 water pollution abatement projects at 25 CONUS installations. The Army's utilities request also includes $8.6 million for electrical distribution or augmentation of power facilities; $1.7 million for an on-post network of roads at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, which are required to connect with the scheduled relocation of Maryland Highway No. 24; and $8.0 million for the complete rehabilitation of the Transisthmian Highway in the Panama Canal Zone, connecting with the Panamanian cities of Colon and Panama City.

Significant items included in the Navy request for utilities include $5.7 million for electrical power distribution improvements at seven installations; $1.2 million for heating plant and distribution system improvements at three installations; $5.7 million for water supply and distribution improvements at five installations; and $1.9 million for miscellaneous utilities and ground improvements at seven installations. In the area of pollution abatement, the Navy will correct deficiencies in water pollution at 27 installations for $20.3 million and will correct air pollution deficiencies at 20 installations for $16.0 million.

This portion of the Air Force FY 1972 Military Construction Program will provide expansion and additions to existing utility systems world-wide. Significant items included in this category are: $15.2 million for air pollution abatement at 37 installations; $8.8 million for water pollution abatement at 29 installations; $4.5 million for electric power distribution lines, emergency power and substations; $2.3 million for fire protection, water supply, distribution and storage projects; and $3.9 million for miscellaneous utilities, storm drainage systems and utilities supervisory control systems.

Real Estate, $20.7 million

This is one of the smallest categories in the program and by far the major part is represented by a proposed Navy acquisition at Norfolk, Virginia. The Services' requests are as follows:

The Navy request for additional real estate is $18.4 million for the purchase of approximately 510 acres of land at the Sewells Point Complex at Norfolk, Virginia. Additionally, the Navy request includes land purchases at New London, Little Creek, Homestead, and Seal Beach, and Coronado for $1.5 million and 683.3 acres.

The Air Force is proposing authorization of two minor land projects at George Air Force Base, California, $0.6 million; and Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, $0.2 million.

DEFENSE AGENCIES (TITLE IV)

The request for activities of the Defense Agencies is $26.2 million of which $11.2 million is for new construction and rehabilitation of existing facilities at 13 installations. The remaining $15.0 million is to provide the Secretary of Defense with a contingency fund to meet unforeseen emergency construction needs worldwide. The $11.2 million is divided as follows:

For the Defense Atomic Support Agency.-$0.7 million to provide for a Base Engineer Shop and improved street lighting at Sandia Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

For the Defense Supply Agency.-$7.9 million to provide for administrative space improvements at Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia; power reliability for the communications system of the Defense Automatic Addressing System Office, Dayton, Ohio; heat warehouses 18 and 19, and warehouse lighting and power improvements at the Defense Construction Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio; lighting and improvements to buildings and storage area pavement at the Defense Depot, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; warehouse lighting and power improvements at the Defense Depot, Memphis, Tennessee; improve warehouse heating, warehouse lighting and power improvements, increase transformer capacity, and warehouse drainage improvements at the Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah; dehumidification of warehouses at the Defense Depot Tracy Annex, Stockton, California; a photographic material storage facility, ADP and communications center improvements and a truck entrance and control facility at the Defense General Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia; upgrade air conditioning and heating systems at the Defense Industrial Supply Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; power reliability for communications and ADP center at the Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; administrative space improvements at the DSA Subsistence Regional Headquarters, Alameda, California; and four air pollution abatement facilities at three DSA installations.

For the National Security Agency.-$2.6 million for a Sensitive Materials Center at NSA Headquarters, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland.

Contingency Fund.-As I previously mentioned, within the $26.2 million requested for the Defense Agencies, the sum of $15.0 million has been included to finance unforeseen construction requirements of an urgent and critical nature. This "contingency fund" has proven to be an invaluable and irreplaceable asset in these days of repositioning of forces throughout the Pacific area and of other military requirements related to the adjustments of our national posture which the Secretary of Defense considers vital to the security of the United States.

THURNINGU SAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM

using Program contains a request for 9,684 new units.

1.920

4,254

3.510

9, 684

inits is $244,147,000.

asing request covers the construction of 2,350 trailer

quested for the family housing program for FY 11878 cmprised of the following:

Sice Fund Defense, we are requesting authorization echer with estimated revenue and amounts avail$24,075,000 will finance the total program of

ance set by the Department of Defense each year from which each service prepares its requests. What have the military departments and your office done to implement this 10-year plan?

Answer. Under the 10-year plan formulated to liquidate the $1 billion Reserve Forces facilities backlog, the Secretary of Defense approved an annual level-ofeffort of approximately $100 million to be accommodated within the total annual obligational authority approved for the Military Services. However, because of the FY 1971 budget constraints, it became necessary to defer any substantial implementation of the plan until FY 1972. Our proposed FY 1972 Reserve Forces Military Construction program represents a nearly two-fold increase over that of the previous year and is generally in consonance with the objectives of the long range program. For the future we are now hopeful that similar increments can be achieved in subsequent fiscal year programs so as to permit the timely liquidation of the existing backlog of required reserve facilities.

Question. The increased emphasis that has been placed on increasing the readiness capabilities of the reserve forces has flagged the requirement for close-in training areas. What has your office done in obtaining/retaining these areas and in construction of needed facilities?

Answer. As you know, each of the Military Departments handles its own Reserve Program. I would, therefore, like to address the question based on Service training area requirements and then address the construction aspect. The existing Air Force training areas will be capable of meeting the training require ments of the Air Reserve Forces. The Navy has increased the flying sites for Reserve activities from 18 to 21 and has expanded its geographic recruiting base. This is expected to result in combat readiness gains. Adequate close-in training facilities are also available for the non-flying Reservists. As regards the Army Reserve, I understand that there is a study currently underway in Army by which they hope to determine solutions to satisfy the training areas requirements for the majority of the Reserves which they feel are currently using inadequate sites. My own office has reviewed and endorsed numerous requests to retain close-in training areas for the Army Reserves that have resulted from our screening of excess property. I would like to add one additional point on this matter of training areas. Our procedures require an intensive screening of all proposed excess property within and between the Services and the U.S. Coast Guard. Whenever possible, known requirements are satisfied to include those of the Reserve Forces. We believe that our screening procedures are adequate and find that many of our problems in this area are problems of timing, i.e., requirements developing after the screening has been completed and even, after the property has been reported to the General Service Administration for disposal. Turning now to the construction aspects and over the period of the last three fiscal years (FY 1970-FY 1972), the Military Services have programmed a total of $12.9 million for construction of field training facilities. As the Services continue their scrutiny of the adequacy of existing training areas and those proposed for acquisition, undoubtedly other construction requirements will be identified and programmed in future budgets.

Question. What is the magnitude of new construction requirements that has been generated by the last base closure announcements of March 6, 1970? Please upply the information broken down by military service, active force, 'Reserve force, by year starting in FY 1972 through FY 1974.

Answer. For Army in FY 1972 it is approximately $2.6 million and for Navy the total is some $11.8 million of which $4.2 million is being requested in the FY 1972 budget, and the remaining $7.6 million is intended for accomplishment through reprogramming of FY 1971 and prior year Naval Reserve/Marine Corps Reserve construction appropriations.

Question. In regards to the base closure/relocation actions that have been going on since March of 1970, what have you done to see that the intent of the law and established DOD policies and guidance has been carried out prior to the military services implementing their proposed plans? Please answer by service for both the Active and Reserve forces, emphasizing the new requirements for construction at new or existing locations.

Answer. Aside from some minor facility and air defense site closures, there were only eight installations which have been announced for closure in the U.S. and Puerto Rico by the Military Services since March 1970 and one of these, Fort Wolters, Texas, as you know, has been rescinded. The remaining closures are as follow:

Army

Two Rock Ranch Station, California.

Fort Wadsworth, New York.

Lawndale Army Missile Plant, California.

Navy

Fleet Missile System Analysis and Evaluation Group, Corona, California.
Naval Station, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Air Force

Clinton County Air Force Base, Ohio.
Perrin Air Force Base, Texas.

Both the Military Departments and ourselves have seen to it that all laws and DoD policies and guidance regarding these closures have been carried out. Section 613, Public Law 89-568 requires a full report of the facts and justification for these closures. The required Section 613 reports were provided to the Chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services and Appropriations Committees by the Services.

Construction required at new or existing locations as a result of these closures and resulting relocations is as follows:

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM COSTS REQUIRED AS A RESULT OF SEC. 613, PUBLIC LAW 89-568, BASE CLOSURES (EXCLUSIVE OF FAMILY HOUSING)

1 Only minor military construction projects have been identified for relocation of activities from Fort Wadsworth, N.Y.

Here as before, however, it should be pointed out that over $10.0 million in construction will be avoided as a result of these closures.

Question. What are your long-range plans regarding construction requirements for the Reserve components?

Answer. The Department of Defense has established a phased 10 year program to liquidate the substantial backlog of reserve facilities requirements currently estimated at approximately $1 billion. This phased program envisages the Military Services budgeting a total of approximately $100 million annually for reserve facilities for a 10-year period beginning in FY 1972. Achievement of this objective is contingent of course on such other military priorites of budgetary constraints as may be applicable during the course of the program. Question. Mr. Secretary, how much money approved in FY '71 and prior has not yet been used? Provide this information for Vietnam and other major categories. Also, place in the record the intended disposition of these funds.

Answer. As of March 31, 1971, there was $2,122.6 million unobligated from funds approprinted in FY 1971 and prior years. Of this total, $83.2 million was from funds specifically provided for Vietnam construction. This is available by Department of Defense component and by appropriation as follows: